TMI Blog1958 (6) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case stated) may be said to have been nebulous in the extreme. As cases of this kind turn very much on the particular facts, it will be necessary for me to quote at some length from the stated case, but, before I do that, I might perhaps indicate the points upon which Mr. Magnus for the taxpayer especially relied. The payments in dispute were voluntary payments and, as I have said, the huntsman was employed by the master. The payments came from persons who can be succinctly described as followers or supporters of the hunt. Mr. Magnuss main point which he put in the forefront of his argument were these : the taxpayer had no contractual title to the payments, that is to say, there was nothing in the terms of his engagements which said he would be entitled to receive and retain presents of money made to him by followers or supporters of the hunt at Christmas time; secondly, there is the point that, both with the Bathurst and with the Woodland Pytchely, the taxpayer was engaged as huntsman by the master at a weekly wage; and further, not only was there no contract about the presents of money at Christmas but nothing was said about them on the occasion of the taxpaye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Hunt he received present of cash at or about Christmas time. Some of the presents come to him from persons with whom he had come into contact in his capacity as a hunt servant earlier in his career, but who had no connection with the hunt to which he was huntsman at the time the presents were given. These, however, were few in number, and most of the presents of cash given to the appellant at Christmas came form persons with whom he was at the time in contact in his capacity as huntsman. Such persons with whom mostly be people who regularly rode with the hunt, but would also include persons who only occasionally rode, and persons who did not ride but had an interest in the hunt. Many of these were personal friends of the appellant, who, in his capacity as huntsman, had become a personality of some note to a wide circle of people in the district, not only to people who hunt, but also to people who voluntarily assist in the work of the kennels, to farmers, and to people who attend meets on foot. He also got presents in kind from farmers. 6. It is a widespread custom in hunts in most part of the country (including the Bathurst and Woodland Pytchley Hunts) for the followers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was an adjustment made in respect on the payments referred to in subparagraph (2) of paragraph 9. Those are the facts and the question is whether on those facts the payments, voluntarily made at Christmas to the taxpayer by followers and supporters of and, I should add, persons interested in, the hunt, were profits of his employment within the meaning of Schedule E. I do not think it is necessary to refer to the statutory provisions because I think it is not open to doubt that the expression profits of his employment sufficiently conveys the purport of Schedule E for the purpose of this case. This, as will have been observed, is one of those cases where it is sought to tax payments made voluntarily on the part of the persons who made them. It is, of course, well settled that payments may be taxable in the hands of the hands of the recipient as profits of an office or employment although they are voluntarily made by the persons making them; even so they may be profits of the employment if, from the standpoint of the recipient of the recipient, they accrue to him by virtue of his employment. I am anxious to avoid much citation of authority, this being a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this way. He referred us at the outset to the well-known cases of Herbert v. McQueen and Blakiston v. Cooper. Herbert v. McQueen , relating to the clergy sustentation fund for augmentation of the stipends of clergy and Blakiston v. Cooper, being concerned with the customary Easter offerings made for the benefit of the vicar of a parish. In both those cases the sums received by the clergymen concerned were held to be taxable notwithstanding that the contributions to the funds form which they were derived were voluntarily made by the persons making them. That, according to Mr. Magnus, is the background, if I may so describe it, of the principle that the question whether a payment of his employment depends on whether a payment voluntarily made is taxable in the hands of the recipient as profits of his employment depends on whether from the standpoint of the recipient it comes to him in that capacity. Mr. Magnus said that this principle presented no difficulty in its application to cases such as these clergy cases because in each of those cases there was a definite machinery of collection and organization which really made it quite plain in what capacity the sum was received b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enefit match was held and the gate money was collected on the eve of the retirement of Seymour after a long and brilliant career as a county cricket playing cricket for the county of Kent. It was a once and for all payment after very long service and after a long career spent in entertaining the public. It was made at the proper time for making a testimonial, that is to say, on the eve of the retirement of the person to whom it was being given. That was not so in the present case : these payments were made just as much at the first Christmas after the taxpayers assumption of the office or employment of huntsman as at the last. As to the contention that the motives of the contributors of the voluntary payments shall be looked at (or the objects, perhaps on should say, that they had in view), I agree that, generally speaking, where there is no definitely determining factor, like a reference in the contract of employment of the person concerned, it is hardly possible to assess the quality of the payment without considering the position both of the payers and of the payee and it may well be that, where it is sought to tax a man on receipts of this general character, he can rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at appears to me really to exclude this case from the Seymour v. Reed class of case. I do not think any question of a testimonial or of admiration, respect or regard for the outstanding personal qualities of the taxpayer can well come into the matter. One does not, I apprehend, start giving testimonials to huntsmen so soon as they are engaged. The time when one would expect a testimonial is on the huntsmans retirement. I am far from saying that, if he did retire and on the eve of his retirement a testimonial be way of a collection of money was organized in his favour, that would necessarily be taxable, but the regular character of the subvention does, to my mind, strongly support the view that the payment is made to the holder of the office or employment as such and not to the particular individual holding it on personal grounds. The recurrent quality of the subvention, besides negativing the idea of a testimonial, is also in itself, I think, an indication that the taxpayer received these payments by virtue of his office or employment. I would add this : it appears to me to be clear that the taxpayers hope or expectation of payments pursuant to the custom was at all time a h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verlook the fact that in the case of many of the said sums the giver was influenced to some extent by personal regard for the appellant, but we found that such personal regard had its origin in the way in which the appellant personally performed his duties as huntsman. Mr. Magnus uses that as indicating that if the special commissioners had appreciated the effect of these words they could not have included them appropriately unless they were going to told that this was, in effect, a Seymour v. Reed case for the motivation of the gift or payment in Seymour v. Reed was this very matter; it had its origin in the particular brilliant way in which Mr. Seymour personally had performed his duties as a professional cricketer. That seems to me to be hypercritical. No doubt the payments made under the custom would vary in amount according to the view taken by the contributor of Mr. Wright as a huntsman and possibly as a man. If Mr. Wright was a popular character and liked by a given contributor might well make a more generous contribution than a man who happened to dislike Mr. Wright or to take a poor view of his ability as a huntsman; but these matters, as it seems to me, go to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
